The Inconvenient Science of Racial DNA Profiling

[Mike Ellis]

Now this is an interesting article. A scientist has developed an extremely accurate way to profile the DNA found at a crime scene and predict with better than 90% accuracy the racial background of the DNA "donor". His system has been successfully used to solve critical cases and find the perpetrator, BUT it is under fire because... (wait for it) people are upset that the technique shows that racial differences not only exist, but are detectable and predictable.

This flies directly in the face of the medical community's declaration a few years ago that "race is a social construct". Faced with irrefutable scientific evidence that what every human being with 2 functioning eyeballs has been able to see for themselves for thousands of years, the politically correct crowd simply reject it because it's uncomfortable to think about.

Fascinating - absolutely fascinating.

The Inconvenient Science of Racial DNA Profiling

The Inconvenient Science of Racial DNA Profiling
By Melba Newsome Email 10.05.07 | 11:00 AM

On July 16, 2002, a survey crew from the Department of Transportation found Pam Kinamore's nude, decomposing body in the area along the banks of the Mississippi known as Whiskey Bay, just west of Baton Rouge. The police tested the DNA and quickly realized that they were dealing with a serial killer: the same man who had killed two other white, middle-class women in the area.

The FBI, Louisiana State Police, Baton Rouge Police Department and sheriff's departments soon began a massive search. Based on an FBI profile and a confident eyewitness, the Multi-Agency Homicide Task Force futilely upended South Louisiana in search of a young white man who drove a white pick-up truck. They interrogated possible suspects, knocked on hundreds of doors, held frequent press conferences and sorted through thousands of tips.

In late December, after a fourth murder, police set up a dragnet to obtain DNA from some 1200 white men. Authorities spent months and more than a million dollars running those samples against the killer's. Still nothing.

In early March, 2003, investigators turned to Tony Frudakis, a molecular biologist who said he could determine the killer's race by analyzing his DNA. They were unsure about the science, so, before giving him the go-ahead, the task force sent Frudakis DNA swabs taken from 20 people whose race they knew and asked him to determine their races through blind testing. He nailed every single one.

(snip)

But even the people one might think should be his biggest allies aren't supporting that, including Tony Clayton, the special prosecutor who tried one of the Baton Rouge murder cases. Clayton, who is black, admits that he initially dismissed Frudakis as some white guy trying to substantiate his racist views. He no longer believes that and says "had it not been for Frudakis, we would still be looking for the white guy in the white pick-up truck." But then he adds, "We've been taught that we're all the same, that we bleed the same blood. If you subscribe to the (Frudakis) theory, you're saying we are inherently unequal."

He continues: "If I could push a button and make this technology disappear, I would."

Mr. Clayton fails to appreciate the truth of the matter: the technology proves that people have racial DIFFERENCES, not that they're unequal or of more / less merit than any other person.